In light of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling that same-sex marriage is a right throughout the nation, judges in Ohio cannot ethically refuse to perform civil ceremonies for same sex couples based on their personal beliefs if they perform them for heterosexual couples, nor may they refuse to perform all marriage ceremonies based on those beliefs, the Ohio Supreme Court's Board for Professional Conduct says.

(Jacquelyn Martin, Associated Press)

COLUMBUS, Ohio -- Ohio judges who perform civil marriages may not refuse to conduct a ceremony for a gay couple, nor may they refuse to do all marriages based on personal beliefs opposing gay marriage, the Ohio Supreme Court's Board for Professional Conduct said.

The ruling follows the refusal by a judge in Toledo to conduct a same-sex ceremony for a couple in July, shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that gay marriage was a right in all states. Toledo Municipal Judge C. Allen McConnell said in a written statement he was following his personal and Christian beliefs.

But the professional conduct board, in an advisory opinion issued Friday and announced Monday, said refusing to perform the ceremony on that basis amounts to a violation of a judge's oath of office.

"The oath represents the judge's solemn and personal vow that he or she will impartially perform all duties incumbent on the office and do so without regard to the status or class of persons or parties who come before the court," the board opinion states. "The oath is a reflection of the self-evident principle that the personal, moral, and religious beliefs of a judicial officer should never factor into the performance of any judicial duty."

The issue was put to the Board for Professional Conduct after McConnell sought guidance from the Supreme Court. The state's highest court does not issue advisory opinions. Rather, they are issued through the professional conduct board.

The U.S. Supreme Court, in a ruling on gay marriage bans in Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee and Michigan, held that such state actions violated the U.S. Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment.

"The right to marry is fundamental because it supports a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in his opinion, titled under the Ohio case Obergefell v. Hodges.

"It is demeaning to lock same-sex couples out of a central institution of the Nation's society, for they too may aspire to the transcendent purposes of marriage," Kennedy wrote.

After the case, Ohio Gov. John Kasich and Attorney General Mike DeWine, who both favor traditional marriage, said that the court's ruling established same-sex marriage as the law of the land and that Ohio should move on.

But the case has prompted national discussion about whether individuals, churches and businesses will be able to personally reject participation in such marriages without reprisal.

In its opinion, the Board of Professional Responsibility noted that a judge who declined to perform same-sex marriages while agreeing to perform opposite-sex ceremonies, or who declined to perform any further ceremonies as a result of opposition to gay marriage, risked putting the impartiality of the court into question.

"A judge's decision to decline to perform some or all marriage ceremonies, when grounded on the judge's personal beliefs, may reflect adversely on perceptions regarding the judge's performance of other judicial duties," the board's opinion states. "A judge may reasonably be perceived as having a personal bias or prejudice based on sexual orientation if he or she elects to perform opposite-sex marriages, but declines to perform same-sex marriages."